Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Control of exemption clauses ordinance

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2024

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 963
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP133/2024

The Court refused the extension of time and leave to appeal because the 14‑day delay was inexcusable, the proposed grounds merely re‑ran arguments already considered and rejected by the Judge, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given the Judge's detailed reasoning which followed and applied the binding Court of Appeal construction of DMC III; accordingly the summons was dismissed and costs awarded to respondent on an indemnity basis.
23 Dec 2022

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1876
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV466/2021

Although the statement of claim was defective and properly struck out in respect of the pleaded head of loss and inapt causes of action, the court held there was an arguable cause of action for breach of contract arising from the bank's failure to give prompt notice by the specified means in the telegraphic transfer form; accordingly the dismissal of the action was set aside and the plaintiff granted opportunity to apply to amend his claim to plead that cause of action and particulars of loss.
2 Jul 2015

LEE YUK SHING v. DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD (In Liquidation)

Citation

LEE YUK SHING v. DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD (In Liquidation)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2483/2011

The court found that the auction listings and catalogue created a contractual term that the lots were "rough diamond stones"; the exclusion clauses relied upon did not meet the statutory/common law reasonableness and notice requirements and therefore did not exclude liability for misdescription as to the nature/genuineness of the stones; the representations made by the auctioneer/agent were imputable to the defendant company; on the evidence the defendant had actual knowledge of falsity (or, alternatively, the liquidators were reckless) and the plaintiff was induced to buy and suffered loss.…
17 Jan 2006

FONG YAU HEI v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

FONG YAU HEI v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1222/2003

Court found Master Cheng negligent in navigation and in commencing tow without ensuring removal of the protruding tank; Gammon negligent for placing the tank; Tung Shun vicariously liable for Cheng; contributory negligence of plaintiff rejected; apportionment of liability between Gammon and Tung Shun/Cheng set at 25:75; Article 3(e) of the 1976 Convention applies because Hong Kong law governing contracts of service (Cap.71 s7) prohibits contractual limitation of liability for death or personal injury, therefore statutory limitation under Cap.434 does not apply to this employee personal injury…
1 Dec 2005

KARPEX (HK) LTD v. YASMINE PRINTING (CHINA) LTD

Citation

KARPEX (HK) LTD v. YASMINE PRINTING (CHINA) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3902/2004

Where a defendant seeks summary judgment on a counterclaim but the plaintiff has raised a prima facie arguable set-off supported by evidence that the set-off may exceed the counterclaim, the plaintiff must be granted leave to defend and summary judgment is inappropriate; for security for costs under Companies Ordinance s357 the applicant must adduce current, concrete evidence that the company will be unable to pay costs — in the absence of sufficiently current evidence security will be refused. The court applied these principles and refused both the summary judgment and the security order whi…
12 Oct 2005

WONG NG KAI FUNG, PATSY v. YAU LAI CHU t/a NEW-DATE PET TRIMMING SALON

Citation

WONG NG KAI FUNG, PATSY v. YAU LAI CHU t/a NEW-DATE PET TRIMMING SALON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA1/2005

The Adjudicator applied the wrong legal test by treating a general warning of possible latent disease as sufficient to exclude the implied condition of merchantable quality under section 16(2); the law requires the defect complained of to have been specifically drawn to the buyer's attention, therefore the implied condition was not excluded and the appeal is allowed and remitted for retrial.

Hong Kong Case Law

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

LEE YUK SHING v. DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD (In Liquidation)

FONG YAU HEI v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

KARPEX (HK) LTD v. YASMINE PRINTING (CHINA) LTD

WONG NG KAI FUNG, PATSY v. YAU LAI CHU t/a NEW-DATE PET TRIMMING SALON